Republic of Guinea
Socioeconomic Impact of Ebola using Mobile Phone Survey
.
May 2016
.
GPV01
AFRICA
.
This report was prepared by a World Bank team led by Ali Zafar (Senior Economist, GMFDR and TTL) with Yele Batana (Senior Economist, GPV01 and co-TTL), Alvin Etang Ndip (Economist, GPV01) and Abdoul Mijiyawa (Senior Economist, GMFDR). The team worked closely with the National Institute of Statistics (INS) under the leadership of Aboubacar Kaba(Director, INS) and Aly Komah (Senior Statistician, INS). The team appreciates the guidance from Nina Rosas Raffo (Social Protection Specialist, GSP07). The team also thanks Vasco Molini (Senior Economist, GPV01) and Aly Sanoh (Economist, GPV01) for comments on an earlier draft. The team worked under the direction of Pablo Fajnzylber (PracticeManager, GPV01).
Regional Vice President: / Makhtar DiopCountry Director: / Pierre Laporte
Senior Director: / Ana Revenga
Practice Manager: / Pablo Fajnzylber
Task Team Leader: / Ali Zafar
Co-Task Team Leader: / Yele Batana
REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF EBOLA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.INTRODUCTION AND COUNTRY CONTEXT
II.POVERTY CONTEXT
III.SURVEY METHODOLOGY
IV.KEY FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY
A.Factors Influencing the Risk of Being Infected with Ebola
B.Effects on Employment and Working Conditions
C.Effects on Agricultural Outputs
D.Effects on Food Security and Coping Strategies
E.Effects on Migration and Cash Transfers
F.Effects on Health
G.Effects on Education
H.Effects on Assets
V.CONCLUSION
ANNEX A: NUMBER OF ORANGE NUMBERS DRAWN BY PREFECTURE FOR THE WORLD BANK SURVEY ON THE IMPACT OF EBOLA IN GUINEA
ANNEX B: BREAKDOWN OF HOUSEHOLDS RESPONDENTS BY ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
ANNEX C: EBOLA SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (2015)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.The Ebola pandemic has been one of the most virulent pandemics in modern times.By the end of 2015, the epidemic had cost the lives of more than 11,300 people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, including more than 500 frontline health care workers. It unleashed large damage to economic growth in these countries, leading to lost gross domestic product (GDP) of close to US$2.8 billion and much panic, among both the local population as well as foreign and domestic investors. Guinea, where the Ebola crisis originated in December 2013, was the last to emerge free from Ebola.Liberia was declared free of Ebola in May 2015, Sierra Leone in November 2015, and Guinea on December 29, 2015, by the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition to the severe effects of Ebola, the economic downturn in the three countries has been exacerbated by the sharp decline in global commodity prices. Despite evidence of the effect of Ebola on the macroeconomic and fiscal environment, there was a scarcity of just-in time data on the household impact.
2.After good growth performance between 2011 and 2013, Guinea’s economy has suffered a number of setbacks, including the Ebola crisis and a sharp drop in new investment in the mining sector. From a macroeconomic standpoint, real GDP growth dropped to 1.1 percent in 2014 and 0.1 percent in 2015 respectively. The services and mining sectors were adversely affected by Ebola in 2015. The mining sector is estimated to have contracted substantially in 2015 due to a combination of investor aversion because of Ebola, declining international metal prices, and Guinea’s uncertain policy regime in this sector. The epidemic and renewed political unrest in the run-up to the October presidential elections in 2015 also resulted in declining activity in the services sector. On a positive note, electricity production has improved following the start of operations of the new Kaleta hydroelectricity power plant by mid-2015.
3.As part of the international effort to understand and manage the Ebola crisis and to obtain microeconomic data, the World Bank partnered with Guinea’s National Institute of Statistics (INS) to conduct a mobile phone survey to measure the socioeconomic impact of Ebola on households, following in the footsteps of similar mobile surveys conducted in Liberia and Sierra Leone in 2015. From September 7 to 21, 2015, Guinea’s INS conducted a mobile phone survey on 2467 households, with over 60 quantitative and qualitative questions, to assess the impact of the pandemic on incomes, the labor market, education, health, agriculture, and quality of life.The sampling frame, the list of all possible units from which selected households were drawn, was an existing list of phone numbers. Using this sample drawn from the list of subscribers of the local telecommunications giant—Orange—the survey was able to reachhouseholds using random digit dialling (RDD) among the 70 percent of the population that own mobile phones, covering all provinces and ethnic groups in the country, It is important to note that Orange is the biggest mobile telephone network in Guinea, with over 5,300,000 customers and a market share of nearly 60 percent in value terms (on December 31, 2015).
4.Two strata were used based on classification from the Epidemiological Report on Ebola Outbreak (January 20, 2015). The first stratum (or zone) covers areas severely affected by Ebola, including the forested area where Ebola first started, the border areas with Sierra Leone, and Conakry and its neighboring areas. The second zone includes areas not directly affected by Ebola, especially the northern parts of the country. The later zone formed the control group for the analysis, A sample of 2,500 households was selected throughout the country. In the severely affected area, 1,500 households were selected compared to 1,000 households in the area less or not at all affected by Ebola. Two important limitations of the study were the inability to reach the 30 percent of very poor who do not have cell phones, coupled with the challenges of undertaking a mobile survey versus a face to face survey.
5.The study finds that the pandemic had ripple effects on the economic fabric and that the economic effects of Ebola have outlasted the epidemiological ones.The main findings of the survey are:
- Overall impact.All parts of Guinea were economically impacted by Ebola, with greater impact in the southeast and the areas around Conakry. A quarter of respondents in the severely affected areas reported experiencing proven cases of Ebola in their neighborhood or village. One in twenty respondents in the less affected areas reported experiencing proven cases of Ebola in their neighborhood or village.
- Likelihood of Ebola.The probability of a household to experience Ebola increased significantly with poverty and being headed by a woman,while factors such as household size and population density, and the community standard of living may explain the occurrence of Ebola in neighborhoods. The bottom 40 percent of households in terms of wealth were more likely to contract Ebola compared with the richest 60 percent of households.
- Employment and incomes.Urban employment has deteriorated with Ebola outbreak.The unemployment rate appears higher in urban areas severely affected by Ebola than in urban areas less affected, atnearly 17 percent and 12 percent, respectively.In parallel, there has been a decline in rural incomes, with a disproportionate impact on women.
- Agriculture.Agriculture production remained resilient during the crisis. Compared to 2013, agricultural production in 2015 increased for 41 percent of households. Two possible explanations are the food security interventions of the government and the lack of migration of poor farmers who continued farming during the crisis.
- Food security.The increase in rice price was reported by 33 percent of Guinean households from severely affected areas against 13 percent of households from less affected areas.Food consumption declined significantly, with 30 percent households in Conakry and 23 percent in the other severely affected areas changing their food habits, compared to 17 percent in the less affected areas. It appears likely that the increasing pressure on food prices resulting from disruptions in production and trade limitations were offset by the diminishing effect of low domestic demand due to lower incomes.
- Education.Close to 7 percent of households withdrew their children from school, with the large majority citing Ebola as the main factor.
- Health.The survey showed that about 11 percent of households in the areas severely affected by Ebola were afraid to go to health facilities because of fear of contacting the pandemic, compared to only 2 percent of those living in less affected areas. However, in spite of Ebola, almost all individuals who needed treatment for malaria and diarrhea still visited a health facility.
- Knowledge.In Guinea, almost all households reported having heard of Ebola, regardless of whether they were severely affected or less affected by the pandemic.
- Comparisons with Liberia and Sierra Leone. There were a number of similar patterns, although magnitudes vary. First, in all three countries, Ebola had a pernicious effect on employment and incomes. Second, food consumption declined, with many households reducing the number of meals eaten in a day. Third, there was school drop-out, with a substantial share of households that include at least one school-aged child reporting that they are not in school due to Ebola. Ebola was cited by a substantial share of households as the reason for withdrawing their children from school. Fourth, the use of health facilities continued to increase in spite of Ebola. Finally, agriculture production remained resilient in all three, although there were some price fluctuations in local markets.
- Policy implications. There is a pressing need to continue mobilizing aid for Guinea even in the aftermath of Ebola in order to jumpstart its recovery and cushion the shocks. Greater supply of inputs to farmers, better social safety nets, and stronger government support for social sectors is needed.
I.INTRODUCTION AND COUNTRY CONTEXT
6.Serious challenges remain in addressing the impact of the Ebola epidemic that affected Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone since early2014, despite great success in stopping the epidemic. By end- December 2015, the epidemic had cost the lives of more than 11,300 people in the three countries, including more than 500 health care workers.The number of new cases peaked at more than 50 per week in early2015 before gradually declining as containment efforts took effect. Liberia was declared free of Ebola in May 2015, Sierra Leone in November 2015, and Guinea on December 29, 2015, by WHO.
7.Guinea, where the Ebola crisis originated in December 2013, was the last to emerge free from Ebola.The genesis of the Ebola virus was in Guinea in December 2013, starting in the southeast in the forested areas of Macenta and Gueckedou, bordering Liberia and Sierra Leone (see figure 2). Strong mobilization of efforts by the international community, coupled with government leadership in the three countries, helped stem the pandemic. With the development of strong Ebola response plans, establishment of treatment centers, inflow of medical supplies and personnel, and development of robust systems of contact tracing, the epidemic was tackled.After more than a year, the pandemic was defeated. In response to the apparent eradication of the disease, the authorities in the three countries are preparing for a post-Ebola phase.
Figure 1. Political Map of Guinea
Source: World Bank
8.In addition to the great loss of life, the epidemic has caused great damage to the countries’ economies. Total GDP losses for the three countries in 2015 alone are estimated at US$2.2 billion, of which US$535million is for Guinea, US$240million for Liberia, and US$1.4billion for Sierra Leone. Inflation has moderated in all three countries, averaging below 10 percent, helped in large measure by lower international food and fuel prices. The closure of borders by neighboring countries during the pandemic had reduced international trade in goods and services and affected consumption in the short term, due to the importance of food both on imports and exports. Commodities such as rice, palm oil, potato, and banana were affected. The decline in production and economic activities resulted in the closure of some businesses and caused an economic recession by boosting unemployment and poverty in Guinea. In addition to the severe effects of Ebola, the economic downturn in the three countries has been exacerbated by the sharp decline in global commodity prices.
Figure 2. Map of Ebola Cases in Guinea
9.Aspart of the international response, the World Bank Group has significantlyfinanced the Ebola-affected countries. Overall, the Bank Group has mobilized close to US$1.6 billion in financing for the countries hardest hit by the crisis, including US$400 million announced in August and September 2014 for the emergency response. The funds have financed Ebola-containment efforts in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone; helped families and communities cope with the economic impact of the crisis;and strengthened public health systems in the three countries to guard against future disease outbreaks.
10.Guinea was significantly affected by the Ebola pandemic, jeopardizing some of the gains in macroeconomic stability and poverty reductionduring the last few years. Real GDP growth in 2015 was 0.1 percent, compared to a pre-Ebola forecast of about 4 percent.While there has been some rebound in agriculture and services, the mining sector continues to contract, and foreign investors remain wary of new projects. The mining sector is estimated to have contracted substantially in 2015 due to a combination of investor risk aversion because of Ebola, declining international metal prices, and Guinea’s uncertain policy regime.Pre-Ebola agriculture GDP growth was projected at 5 percent for 2015 compared to an actual growth of 3 percent, as the agricultural sector showed more resilience than expected.On the whole, Ebola affected all sectors of the Guinean economy. This shock was further compounded by the uncertainty in the legal regime of the mining sector and by the preparation for the national elections held in November 2015. Electricity production has improved following the start of operations of the new Kaleta hydroelectricity power plant by midyear. Reflecting low domestic demand and the sharp decline in domestic fuel prices early in 2015, inflation continued to decline, reaching less than 8 percent in 2015.In addition, the fiscal situation deteriorated sharply in 2015. Revenue and grants wereestimated to fall by almost 3 percentage points of GDP, principally as the result of lowerexternal budget support that has not been realized, and expenditures increased by 2 percentage points due to Ebola-related transfers and public investment spending.
11.The impact of the Ebola epidemic on economic well-being operates through several channels.First, there are the direct and indirect effects of the sickness and mortality themselves, which consume scarce health care resources and affect labor force participation rates. Second, are the behavioral effectsthat result from peoples’ fear of contagion, which in turn lead to a fear of association with others and reduces labor force participation, closes places of employment, disrupts transportation, and motivates some government and private decisionmakers to close seaports and airports (World Bank 2015). In the recent history of infectious disease outbreaks such as the SARS epidemic of 2002–2004 and the H1N1 flu epidemic of 2009, behavioral effects have been responsible for 80 to 90 percent of the total economic impact of the epidemic. Third, there are longer-term economic effects, due to possible changes in labor markets, agricultural production, employment, school enrollment, and quality of life. The first of these channels, consisting of the labor force and health expenditure impacts, closely tracks the number of suspected and actual cases of the disease (see figure 3). The other two channels are less sensitive to the actual number of cases of Ebola because they are is driven by aversion behavior and perception. Human reaction varies depending on the perceived threats and the impact of the pandemic.
Figure 3. Broad Channels of Short-term Impact
Source: World Bank (2015).
II.POVERTY CONTEXT
12.In line with the deteriorating macroeconomic situation has been a worsening poverty situation which has been exacerbated by the crisis. The goal of the survey has been to empirically document that increase. Historically, the poverty rate in Guinea has remained high. With elusive and volatile growth, the poverty rate increased from 53 percent in 2007 to 55 percent in 2012 (See table 1).Declining average per capita consumption contributed to the increase in poverty, but a mild reduction in inequality, notably in rural areas, somewhat contained the overall increase in poverty. Rural-urban migrations and the sharp increase in food prices explain why rural areas fared better than urban areas in terms of poverty reduction, even if poverty rates remain higher in rural areas than in urban areas, with 65 and 35 percent, respectively, in 2012. Poverty headcount that was almost the same in 2007 for zone 1 and zone 2[1] (around 58 percent), increased in the former to reach 63 percent in 2012, while it decreased to 56.8 in the latter. Conakry also experienced a significant rise in poverty from 26 to about 36 percent. The proportion of poor individuals living in households with a mobile phone increased from only 24 percent in 2007 to nearly 43 percent in 2012. The same trends are observed for the poverty gap and poverty severity. This reflects that mobile phones, which were accessible only to some privileged households a decade ago, have become widely accessible even to more deprived households. It appears, however, that more than half of poor households do not have a mobile phone, which raises the issue of the national representativeness of the Ebola survey. Table 2, based on the 2012 survey, shows how the mobile survey sample may be biased. The differences in the main socioeconomic and demographic characteristics between households with and without cell phone seem to be significant, especially for the distribution by the place of residence.Unsurprisingly, more than 90 percent of households without cell phone are located in rural areas against less than 50 percent for households with cell phone.
Table 1. Poverty of Households by Geographical Area and Mobile Phone Ownership